2.5.3.1.5. The Need for Involvement and Enjoyment46
2.5.3.2. Achieving Intrinsic Motivation in L2 Learning47
2.5.3.3. The Role of Intrinsic Motivation in L2 Learning47
2.5.4. Extrinsic Motivation48
2.6. The L2 Motivational Self System51
2.7. Motivational Strategies53
2.7.1. Creating Basic Motivational Conditions59
2.7.1.1. Demonstrating Proper Teacher Behaviour59
2.7.1.1.1. Teacher’s Enthusiasm59
2.7.1.1.2. Teacher’s Commitment62
2.7.1.1.3. Teacher’s Care and Acceptance63
2.7.1.1.4. Teacher’s Immediacy65
2.7.1.2. Creating a Pleasant Classroom Atmosphere66
2.7.1.3. Promoting Group Cohesiveness and Setting Group Norms67
2.7.2.Generating Initial Motivation70
2.7.2.1. Familiarising Learners with L2 Culture and L2 Related Values70
2.7.2.2. Increasing Learners’ Expectancy of Success71
2.7.2.3. Promoting Learners’ Positive Goals (Goal-Orientedness) and Realistic Beliefs74
2.7.2.4. Relating Language Learning to Learners’ Needs and Goals77
2.7.3. Maintaining and Protecting Motivation78
2.7.3.1. Making Learning Stimulating and Enjoyable78
2.7.3.2. Diminishing Learners’ Anxiety and Building up Their Self-Confidence79
2.7.3.3. Promoting Learners’ Autonomy82
2.7.4. Encouraging Positive Self-Evaluation83
2.7.4.1. Promoting Learners’ Motivational Attributions83
2.7.4.2. Providing Learners with Motivational Feedback85
2.7.4.3. Increasing Learners’ Satisfaction86
2.8. Current Status of English in Iran90
CHAPTER THREE- METHOD92
3.1. Overview93
3.2. Participants93
3.3. Instruments94
3.4. Design95
3.5.Procedure95
3.5.1.Piloting95

3.5.2.Data collection96
3.6. Data Analysis97
CHAPTER FOUR- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION101
4.1. Overview102
4.2. Research Question 1102
4.2.1. Results102
4.2.2. Discussions109
4.3. Research Question 2110
4.3.1. Results110
4.3.2. Discussions111
4.4. Research Question 3112
4.4.1. Results112
4.4.2. Discussions114
4.5. Research Question 4115
4.5.1. Results115
4.5.2. Discussions117
CHAPTER FIVE-CONCLUSION, PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH118
5.1. Overview119
5.2. Conclusion119
5.3.Pedagogical Implications121
5.4.Suggestions for Further research126
References137
List of Appendixes
Appendix 1: English version of Frequency Questionnaires127
Appendix 2: English version of Importance Questionnaires130
Appendix 3: Farsi version of Frequency Questionnaires133
Appendix 4: Farsi version of Importance Questionnaires135
List of Tables
Table 3.1. Gender of Participants93
Table 3.2. EFL Teaching Experience of Participants93
Table 3.3. Importance and Frequency Survey Results: Descriptive Statistics and Rankings of Ten Macro-strategies and Related Strategies99
Table 4.1. Importance Questionnaires Results: Descriptive Statistics and Rankings of Ten Macro-strategies and Related Strategies103
Table 4.2. Comparison of the Final Rank Order of the Macro-strategies/scales Obtained in This Study and in Hungary (1998), Taiwan (2007)110
Table 4.3. Frequency Questionnaires Results: Descriptive Statistics and Rankings of Ten Macro-strategies and Related Strategies112
Table 4.4. Pearson Correlation Results between Overall Means of Motivational Strategies of the Importance and Frequency Questionnaires115
Table 4.5. Pearson Correlation Results between Macro and Micro-strategies of the Importance and Frequency Questionnaires116
List of Figures
Figure 2.1. Gardner’s (1985) Socio-Educational Model of Second Language Acquisition (Gardner, 1985, p.199)15
Figure 2.2. Components of Gardner’s Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) (Gardner, 1985, 144)17
Figure 2.3. Tremblay and Gardner’s (1995) Model of L2 Motivation (cited in Dörnyei& Ushioda, 2011, p.4819
Figure 2.4. Dörnyei’s (1994) Model of L2 Motivation (Dörnyei, 1994a, p.280)24
Figure 2.5. Williams and Burden’s (1997) Framework of L2 Motivation (cited in Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011, p.54)26
Figure 2.6. Schematic Representation of the Three Mechanisms Making up the Motivational Task- Processing System (cited in Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011, p.96)28
Figure 2.7. Dörnyei and Ottó’s (1998) Process Model of L2 Motivation (Dörnyei and Ottó, 1998, p.48)38
Figure 2.8. Gardner’s Conceptualisation of the Integrative Motivation (Gardner, 1986, p.87)41
Figure 2.9. Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System (cited in Dörnyei & Usioda, 2011, p. 52)52
Figure 2.10. The Components of Motivational L2 Teaching Practice (cited in Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011, p.108)58
Figure 2.11. Knight’s (2006) Model of Teacher’s Credibility (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011, p.108)61
List of Abbreviations
TEFL: Teaching English as a Foreign Language
ESL: English as a Second Language
EFL: English as a Foreign Language
SL: Second Language
FL: Foreign Language
L2: Second Language
SDT: Self-Determination Theory
AMTB: Attitude/Motivation Test Battery
ARCS: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, Satisfaction
CET: Cognitive Evaluation Theory
ESOL: English for Speakers of Other Languages
MOLT: Motivation Orientation of Language Teaching
COLT: Communication Orientation of Language Teaching
LSP: Language for Specific Purposes
NO: Number
M: Mean
SD: Standard Deviation
Diff: Difference
Corr.: Correlation
Sig.: Significance
CHAPTER ONE- INTRODUCTION
1.1.
1.1. Overview
In the field of second or foreign language (L2) teaching and learning, motivation is a significant factor that leads to the language learners’ success or failure. Motivation is the most used concept for explaining the failure or success of a learner. Dörnyei (1998) claimed that motivation is a key to learning. It is an inner source, desire, emotion, reason, need, impulse or purpose that moves a person to a particular action. Motivation has been regarded as one of the main factors that influence the speed and amount of success of foreign language learners. This issue seems to be highly related to the educational context of Iran where it is seen that many Iranian learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) fail to reach at least an average level of proficiency in English. As Dörnyei (2001b) claims, motivation is not a concrete concept; it is an abstract and hypothetical concept that is used to explain why people think and behave in certain situations as they do.
Students’ lack of motivation in language leaning contexts is a major problem for language teachers. According to Dörnyei (as cited in Marie-Jose´ Guilloteaux, 2013), a lot of researchers have tried to help teachers find ways of motivating language learners. In spite of the studies which have been done in this regard, the cultural and ethno-linguistic differences in various contexts were one of the important motives of doing this research.
Accordingly, the aim of this research is to evaluate (a) the extent to which a list of motivational strategies derived from Western educational contexts are perceived as relevant by Iranian EFL teachers and (b) the cross-cultural validity of those motivational strategies. To this effect, the present study builds on Dörnyei and Csizér ’s (1998) initial investigation in Hungary and on its modified replication conducted in Taiwan(Cheng and Dörnyei, 2007) and strives to find out how the same concept functions in Iran.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Regarding the complex nature of motivation and its remarkable influence in second and foreign (L2) language learning, there are a growing number of studies focusing on motivation and motivational strategies in language teaching and learning settings. Dörnyei (as cited in Marie-Jose´ Guilloteaux, 2013) believes that until the early 1990s, most of the researchers studied motivation from a social psychological perspective. Much of the research in this period has been initiated and inspired by two Canadian psychologists, Robert Gardner and Wallace Lambert, who, together with their colleagues and students, grounded motivation research in a social psychological framework. Gardner and his associates also established scientific research procedures and introduced standardized assessment techniques and instruments, thus setting high research standards and bringing L2 motivation research to development (Ellis, 2008). Although Gardner’s motivation construct did not go unchallenged over the years, it was not until the early 1990s that a marked shift in thought appeared in papers on L2 motivation as researchers tried to reopen the research agenda in order to shed new light on the subject. The main problem with Gardner’s social psychological approach appeared to be, ironically, that it was too influential. While acknowledging unanimously the fundamental importance of the Gardnerian social psychological model, researchers were also calling for a more pragmatic, education-centered approach to motivation research, which would be consistent with the perceptions of practicing teachers and which would also be in line with the current results of mainstream educational psychological research. It must be noted that Gardner’s motivation theory does include an educational dimension and that the motivation test he and his associates developed, the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB), contains several items focusing on the learner’s evaluation of the classroom learning situation. However, the main emphasis in Gardner’s model and the way it has been typically understood is on general motivational components grounded in the social milieu rather than in the foreign language classroom. For example, the AMTB contains a section in which students’ attitudes toward the language teacher and the course are tested. This may be appropriate for measurement purposes, but the data from this section does not provide a detailed enough description of the classroom dimension to be helpful in generating practical guidelines. Finally, Gardner’s motivation construct does not include details on cognitive aspects of motivation to learn, whereas this is the direction in which educational psychological research on motivation has been moving during the last fifteen years.
Gardner’s social psychological approach has never clearly approached the classroom implications of motivation theory and it did not help language teachers in promoting their teaching practice. However around the 1990s, second and foreign language motivation research has seen an explosion of interest and the researchers have studied motivation from a more education-based perspective. In this period the authors’ attention were shifted to cognitive-situated view of motivation and situation-specific factors like learning and teaching situation were given more attention (Ellis, 2008). Authors like Dörnyei (2001a) gave prominence to more process-oriented view of motivation with an emphasis on dynamic nature of motivation and its temporal variation. Recently, some nearly similar studies on motivational strategies have been carried out by some authors like Dörnyei and Csizér ’s (1998) in Hungary, Cheng and Dörnyei (2007) in Taiwan, Hsu (2008) in Taiwan, Kassing (2011) in Indonesia, Gilloteaux and Dörnyei (2010) in South Korea, and Alrabai (2011) in Saudi-Arabia. Thus, the similarities and differences in the use of motivational strategies by English teachers in different educational contexts have been identified. Similar to the aforementioned studies, in the present study, it has been attempted to identify the top 10 strategies that Iranian EFL teachers perceive as the most important for promoting students’ L2 motivation in the language classroom. By comparing the results of this study with others conducted in different educational setting in different countries, we can recognize the motivational strategies which are culture dependent or vise-versa. In addition, we want to design practical techniques for educators and teachers of English in Iran that can be used to effectively implement motivational strategies in the L2 classroom. And again this study wants to identify the proportion with which Iranian English teachers perceive the list of motivational strategies important for language classes or the proportion with which they use these strategies in their actual language teaching situations. By making a complete list of motivational strategies that are more useful and practical in EFL context of Iran, the English teachers can make use of them for finding ways of eliciting, enhancing, and sustaining students’ motivation.
As mentioned earlier, Dörnyei and Cheng (2007) carried out a research to identify the use of motivational strategies among Taiwanese English teachers. They explored the frequency and the importance of the strategies used by Taiwanese English teachers. They compared these results with the findings of the nearly identical study conducted by Dörnyei and Csizér (1998) in Hungry. Similar to the aforementioned studies in Hungary and Taiwan, the current study is based on Dörnyei’s (2001b) framework of motivational teaching practice in the L2 classroom, which was based on the process-oriented model by Dörnyei and Otto (1998). Therefore, the frequency and the importance of the use of motivational strategies among Iranian EFL teachers will be studied to reveal the similarities and differences between Iranian teachers’ ratings of motivational scales and the other countries’. Whether unique cultures of different countries can influence the teachers’ ratings or strategy use or not? Which strategies are culture-specific or culture-dependent?
1.3. Significance of the Study
Studying the literature of the research into the use of motivational strategies in ESL/EFL contexts in different countries shows that a small number of studies have been carried out in this realm. Dörnyei& Csizér (1998) listed a number of publications which analyze and describe motivational strategies, such as, Brown (2001), Cranmer (1996), Dörnyei (1994), Oxford and Shearin (1994) and Williams & Burden(1997). Yet, research focusing on motivating learners requires much more attention (Dörnyei & Csizér, 1998). There are a number of studies in the Far Eastern contexts, conducted in countries, like, Indonesia (Kassing, 2011), Taiwan (Hsu, 2009) and Korea (Marie-Jose´ Guilloteaux, 2012). Nearly a smaller amount of research has been carried out in the Persian Gulf littoral states, such as, the Saudi Arabia by Alrabai (2010) and Oman by A-Mahrooqi & Asante (2012).However, almost no research has been done into the use of motivational strategies in Iran. Since there is no prior study of this type in Iran, the present study may be a timely endeavor and have useful consequences for teacher educators, teachers, learners and researchers in the realm of EFL/ESL. Considering the huge differences in culture, religion, politics, language, and system of education among Iran and Western, Eastern, or Arab countries were a motive for conducting this study. The findings of current study will reveal whether these differences effect the way Iranian EFL teachers rate or use the motivational strategies or not. And again the findings will add to the pool of existing research, offering an insight into the Iranian EFL context and teacher-based motivational practices inside the classroom.
1.4. Research Questions
1. Which motivational strategies do Iranian EFL teachers rate as the most important or the least important to enhance motivation in their classes?
2. Which motivational strategies seem to transfer across contexts and which seem to be culturally/contextually dependent?
3. Which motivational strategies have the most and the least proportion of use in EFL context of Iran?
4. Is there any relationship between EFL teachers’ attitudes towards the importance of motivational strategies (Importance Questionnaire) and their attitudes towards the use frequency of motivational strategies (Frequency Questionnaire)?
1.5. Definition of Key Terms
Theoretical and Operational Definitions:
Motivation: “In a general sense, motivation can be defined as the dynamically changing cumulative arousal in a person that initiates, directs, coordinates, amplifies, terminates, and evaluates the cognitive and motor processes whereby initial wishes and desires are selected, prioritised, operationalised and (successfully or unsuccessfully) acted out”. (Dörnyei and Ottó 1998, p. 65)
Motivational Strategies: “Motivational strategies are techniques that promote the individual’s goal-related behavior. Because human behaviour is rather complex, there are many diverse ways of promoting it – in fact, almost any influence a person is exposed to might potentially affect his/her behaviour. Motivational strategies refer to those motivational influences that are consciously exerted to achieve some systematic and enduring positive effect”. (Dörnyei, 2001, p.28)
Operational Definition of Motivational Strategies: In this study Motivational Strategies will be measured by using two questionnaires named Frequency questionnaire and Importance questionnaire used by Dörnyei and Cheng in Taiwan in 2007.
Macro-motivational strategies: General motivational guidelines that aim at orienting the teacher on how to introduce a more motivation-sensitive teaching practice (Dörnyei, 2001a).
Micro-motivational strategies: Specific individual motivational techniques and practices by which human achievement behaviour can be promoted (Dörnyei, 2001a).
EFL Context: “Someone who learns English in a formal classroom setting, with limited or no opportunities for use outside the classroom, in a country in which English does not play an important role in internal communication (China, Japan, and Korea, for example), is said to be learning English as a foreign language”. (Richards and Schmidt, 2010, p.197)
1.6. Limitations of the study
Limitations: All findings and inferences are based on self-reporting by the participants, and thus, are subject to the inherent limitations of self-reporting. A combination of questionnaires and observations of actual classroom practice could provide more reliable measurements of the frequency with which teachers employ each strategy. Another limitation for this study lies in the fact highlighted by Dörnyei (1994, 2001b) that the proposed motivational strategies are not rock-solid golden rules, but rather suggestions that may work with one teacher or group better than another due to the differences amongst the learners in their culture, age, proficiency level, the relationship to the target language, etc. It is unclear therefore, whether the motivational strategies tested in the current study would be as effective with different populations of language learners and in different socio-cultural and educational contexts. Furthermore, it may never be known whether any of the participants give high ratings to many of the strategies simply because the researchers might expect all EFL teachers to routinely employ them. The study examined instructional motivational strategies utilised by the EFL teacher.
1.7. Delimitations of the study
One of the delimitations of the study is that the participants are restricted to Ardabil province. The other delimitation is that the present research considers English teachers who teach in junior high school and high school as the only participants without considering EFL teachers from other educational settings.
Self-regulating motivational strategies used by the EFL learner were not considered in our study. There is also a variety of other factors different from instructional motivational strategies that can contribute to enhancing the language learners’ motivation (e.g. types of learning materials used in the classroom). These factors have not been utilised in the current study.

در این سایت فقط تکه هایی از این مطلب با شماره بندی انتهای صفحه درج می شود که ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل ورد به داخل سایت کلمات به هم بریزد یا شکل ها درج نشود

شما می توانید تکه های دیگری از این مطلب را با جستجو در همین سایت بخوانید

ولی برای دانلود فایل اصلی با فرمت ورد حاوی تمامی قسمت ها با منابع کامل

اینجا کلیک کنید

A final delimitation for this study is that it did not investigate how the EFL teacher’s own motivation to teach the foreign language can affect his/her utilisation of motivational strategies.
CHAPTER TWO- REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. Overview
The importance of motivation as a factor in learning cannot be underestimated. In the second language acquisition literature, the enormous role that motivation plays in the attainment of non-primary languages is practically unanimously acknowledged. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that over the past 40 or 50 years there have been numerous studies investigating various aspects of the of motivation within the field of teaching/learning second/foreign languages. This chapter presents a discussion and critical evaluation of the existing relevant literature on motivation more generally as well as its specific role in second/foreign language learning/teaching. The different conceptualizations and theories of motivation in general and also in the field of foreign/second language are discussed in this chapter. Other issues like the significance of L2 motivation; types of L2motivation; the L2 motivational self- system; and motivational strategies are also reviewed.
2.2. Conceptualizations of Motivation
In spite of the great number of studies (e.g. Dörnyei, 1994; 1996; 1998; 2001; 2002; 2003; 2009; 2010; Dörnyei & Otto 1998; Dörnyei & Ushioda, in press; Gardner, 1985;Gardner et al., 2004; Oxford & Shearin, 1994), there has been little agreement about what language learning motivation is. Dörnyei (1996) notes that: “Motivation theories in general seek to explain no less than the fundamental question why humans behave as they do, and therefore it would be naive to give any simple straightforward answer; indeed any different psychological perspective on human behavior is associated with a different theory of motivation and, thus, in general psychology it is not the lack but rather the abundance of motivation theories which confuses the scene” (p. 72). Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011) proposed that “the term motivation derives from the Latin verb movere meaning ‘to move’ (p. 3). What makes a person to make certain choices, to engage in action, to expend effort and persist in action?”
While many early views link motivation with inner forces like instincts, traits, volition, and will, other cognitive contemporary views link it to the individuals’ thoughts, beliefs, and emotions. Freud (cited in Dörnyei, 2001a) is an example of those early views that theorised that human behaviour results from forces within individuals and that motivation is a reflection of physical energy. In contrast, Skinner (cited in Dörnyei, 2001a) saw motivation as best viewed in behavioural terms rather than as arising from inner forces.
Many of the contemporary psychological views regarded motivation as the input responsible for initiating, directing, and sustaining behaviours. For example, Brophy (2004) has defined motivation as a theoretical construct used to explain the initiation, direction, intensity, persistence, and quality of behaviour, especially goal-directed behaviour. Similarly, Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) view motivation as a function of a person’s thoughts; and define it as the dynamic changing cumulative arousal in a person that initiates, directs, coordinates, amplifies, terminates, and evaluates the cognitive and motor processes whereby initial wishes and desires are selected, prioritized, operationalized, and successfully or unsuccessfully acted out.
Other views have, on the other hand, conceptualised motivation in broad terms. Dörnyei and Skehan (2003) state that “motivation is responsible for why people decide to do something, how long they are willing to sustain the activity, and how hard they are going to pursue it”(p. 614). They believe that motivation is a process, not a product, because it is not observable and can be inferred only from behaviours like the choice of tasks, effort, persistence, and verbalisation. They also see that motivation involves goals that provide inputs for initiating motivation to achieve goals. They argue that motivation requires activity, be it physical or mental. For example, physical activities involve effort and persistence, while mental activities involve planning, researching, monitoring, and decision-making.
It is worth mentioning that the existing conceptualisations of motivation are not actually in conflict with one another, but rather complement each other in articulating what motivation is generally about.
To conceptualise the term ‘motivation’ in education, Brophy (1998) presents a definition for student’s motivation declaring that this concept is used to explain the degree to which students invest attention and effort in various pursuits, which may or may not be the ones desired by their teachers. Brophy (2004) also provides a definition for motivation to learn clarifying that “it refers to students’ tendency to find academic activities meaningful and worthwhile and to try to get the intended learning benefits from them.”(p. 98)
In relation to L2 learning, psychologists have made various attempts to define motivation. In his social-psychological model, Gardner (1985, p. 10) defines it as “the combination of effort plus desire to achieve the goal of learning the language plus favourable attitudes towards learning a new language.” Ellis (1994, p. 509) claims that “L2 motivation refers to the effort that learners put into learning the L2 as a result of their need or desire to learn it.”
2.3. The Influential Theories of L2 Motivation
There are theories that have been designed to explore the nature of foreign language motivation and the needs of language learners. Dörnyei (2001a) has indicated that the mastery of an L2 is not merely an educational issue but rather that it is a complex event that requires the incorporation of a wide range of elements of the L2 society and culture. According to him, in view of the complexity of L2, there has been a considerable diversity of theories and approaches in the study of the motivational determinants of second language acquisition and use. Dörnyei (2005) has summarised, briefly, the history of L2 motivation research into three phases.
During each phase, there were many attempts to theorise the L2 motivation construct. These three phases are:
2.3.1. The Social-Psychological Period (1959-1990)
L2 motivation research was initiated in Canada in the late 1950s with the remarkable work of two renowned Canadian social psychologists Robert Gardner and Wallace Lambert (1959, 1972) who conducted many empirical studies and investigations that examined how the language learners’ attitudes towards the L2 speaking community influenced their desire to learn the L2.
2.3.1.1. Gardner’s Social-Psychological Theory
The notable studies and investigations of Robert Gardner and his associates have grounded and inspired the field of L2 motivation research and resulted in one of the leading theories in the field: the Social-Psychological Theory. This theory is based on the assumption that students’ attitudes towards a specific language group are likely to influence their success in incorporating some aspects of that language (Gardner, 1985).
This well-known theory has many features that influentially contributed to the field of L2 motivation in many ways. Among its significant contributions is the detailed analysis it provided about the nature of motivation, how the integrative motivation is made up (Dörnyei, 2000), and its integrative-instrumental motives dichotomy. Gardner’s conceptualisation of the integrative motive encompasses two attitudinal components that influence motivation. The first component is integrativeness, which Gardner conceptualizes as the individual’s willingness and interest in social interaction with the members of the L2 group. The concept of integrativeness in this theory involves integrative motivation, interest in foreign languages, and attitudes towards the foreign/second language. The other component is the attitudes towards the learning situation, which involves the attitudes to, and the evaluation of, the L2 teachers and course.
Gardner’s theory has also laid the foundation of a second language learning model known as The Socio-Educational Model in which motivation is considered a cornerstone (see Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1. Gardner’s (1985) Socio-Educational Model of Second Language Acquisition (Gardner, 1985, p.199)
“Based on their view of second languages as mediating factors between communities of various ethno-linguistic backgrounds in multicultural settings, Gardner and Lambert (1972) have regarded motivation to learn the language of the other communities as a primary force responsible for enhancing or hindering intercultural communication and affiliation” (cited in Dörnyei, 2001a, p. 48). Tremblay and Gardner (1995) have clarified that the construct of motivation in this model includes three basic motivational components: (a) the effort expended to learn the language; it can be assessed as the motivational intensity, which is “a criterion that measures the motivated language behaviour and a central concept in motivation research concerns a main aspect of motivated human behaviour, its direction and its magnitude,” (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005, p. 20); (b) the desire/will to learn the language; and (c) the satisfaction with the task of learning the language, termed as attitudes towards learning the language. In addition, this theory comprises several value aspects like intrinsic value, which is measured by the desire to learn the foreign language and the attitudes towards learning the L2; and the extrinsic value, which is measured by the integrative and instrumental orientations.
Dörnyei (2003) has commented that this model is a major contribution of Gardner’s theory because of the specifications it made for the four aspects of second language acquisition process. These aspects encompass some biological and experiential antecedent factors such as the gender, age, or the learning history of the learner; the individual differences between learners, which include attitudes, intelligence, language aptitude, and motivation; the formal and informal language acquisition contexts; and the language learning outcomes (linguistic and non-linguistic).
A significant issue of this theory as explained by Gardner (1985) is its explanation for the relationship between motivation and orientation. He used the term “orientation” to refer to the goals of learning a foreign language (FL) and believed that the function of the two orientations he discussed (integrative and instrumental) was to initiate motivation and direct it towards a set of goals but neither of which, according to him, is a core component of motivation.
Another significant contribution of Gardner’s motivation theory is the standardized measurement it presented to test L2 motivation. This instrument is called The Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) and it is a multi-component questionnaire that includes measures for the various components of Gardner’s theory and other items assessing classroom practices, such as the appraisal of the language teacher and the language course.
The attitudinal and motivational variables in the AMTB were grouped into five categories, as we can see in Figure 2.2:
Figure 2.2. Components of Gardner’s Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) (Gardner, 1985, 144)
Despite all these major contributions, there was a lot of critique presented by many scholars to the limited nature of this theory (Gardner, 1994). Crookes and Schmidt (1991) have argued that this approach was too dominant, and that it has not seriously considered certain alternative concepts such as the connections of motivation to language-learning processes and language pedagogy. Oxford and Shearin (1994) also emphasise the fact that there would be other possible kinds of L2 motivation other than those discussed in Gardner’s theory. They add that while the concept of L2 learning motivation in this theory is important and extremely useful, it can be expanded to include a greater number of kinds of motivations (e.g. intrinsic and extrinsic motivations). Dörnyei (1994) has identified many limitations for Gardner’s theory. In line with Crookes and Schmidt, he states that although Gardner’s motivation approach went unchallenged for many years, the approach is fundamentally flawed as it ignored giving details on the cognitive aspects of motivation to learn. In relation to the educational applications of L2 motivation, Dörnyei also claims that Gardner’s theory did not include an educational dimension; he argues that the main emphasis of this theory was on general motivational components grounded in the social milieu rather than in the foreign language classroom. Dörnyei and Csizér (1998) assert this claim by stating that the social-psychological approach did not provide a detailed description of the classroom dimension of L2 motivation as it tried neither to explain specific student behaviour, nor to provide any practical guidelines for motivating those students. Furthermore, Cheng and Dörnyei (2007) have argued that this approach has never provided language teachers with direct help in promoting their motivational teaching practices. Dörnyei (2005, 2009) has also highlighted the need to reconceptualise the term “integrativeness”.
In response to strong criticisms of their theory, Gardner and associates carried out many investigations by which they added other motivational components to the old model. In an attempt to expand the motivation construct in language learning, Tremblay and Gardner (1995) investigated the relationship between a number of new motivational concepts such as persistence, attention, goal specificity, and causal attributions to the existing measures in their previous model and to the achievement of proficiency for students studying French.
They came to the realisation that the new motivational variables added to their understanding of L2 motivation and consequently helped them in providing an expanded revised model of language learning motivation (see Figure 2.3).
Figure 2.3. Tremblay and Gardner’s (1995) Model of L2 Motivation (cited in Dörnyei& Ushioda, 2011, p.48
2.3.1.2. Keller’s (1983) Motivational-Design Model
Another attempt to construct an L2 motivation framework during this period was carried out by John Keller in 1983. Despite that Keller’s (1983) model was developed and introduced during a period greatly influenced by social psychology; it was the first comprehensive education-oriented theory of foreign language motivation. Dörnyei (2001a) has maintained that this model draws some of the most important lines of research in motivational psychology and that it synthesises them in a way that the outcome is relevant to classroom application.
In his motivational-design model, Keller (1983) hypothesises that there are four basic motivational conditions that the instructional designer must understand and respond to in order to produce instruction that is interesting, meaningful, and challenging. These components are interest, relevance, expectancy, and satisfaction. Keller (1983, p. 89) stated that “interest refers to whether the learner’s curiosity is aroused and whether this arousal is sustained appropriately over time”. This component is centered on the individual’s intrinsic desires to know more about him/her and his/her environment. Dörnyei (2001a) proposes that relevance in Keller’s model refers to the extent to which the student feels that the instruction is connected to important personal needs, values, or goals. Dörnyei adds that this category coincides with instrumentality at a broad level, while it refers to the extent to which the classroom instruction and course content are considered to be conductive to master the L2 at the foreign language learning level. Keller (1983) explains expectancy in terms of the likelihood of success, and the extent to which success is under control. According to Dörnyei (2001a), this component is related to the learner’s self-confidence and self-efficacy at a general level and to the perceived difficulty of the task, the amount of effort required the amount of assistance and guidance available, the teacher’s presentation of the task, and familiarity with the task type at the language learning level. The satisfaction component in the model refers to the combination of extrinsic rewards, such as grades, and intrinsic rewards, such as enjoyment and pride.
In 1987, Keller developed a modified model in response to his desire to find more systematic ways for understanding the influences of motivation to learn as well as to identify and solve problems with learning motivation (Keller, 1987). The four categories in Keller’s (1983) original model were renamed (‘interest’ became ‘attention,’ and ‘expectancy’ became ‘confidence,’ and the final modified model was labelled as ARCS representing four major conditions: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction. Keller has explained that these conditions are the four conditions that have to be met for people to become and remain motivated. He adds that each of the four conditions subsumes several areas of psychological research and has been divided into specific subcategories with sample motivational strategy prescriptions.
Drawing on Keller (1983) model of motivation, Crookes and Schmidt (1991) have developed a theory of L2 motivation made up of the same four components presented in Keller model: interest, relevance, expectancy, and satisfaction. Dörnyei (1994) has argued that these components appear to be particularly useful in describing some course-specific motives.
2.3.2. The Cognitive-Situated Period (1990-2000)
As a result of a variety of new models and approaches designed in the 1990s, the study ofL2 motivation reached an exciting turning point during this period resulting in what Gardner and Tremblay (1994) have called a “motivational renaissance”. Dörnyei and Skehan (2003, p. 613) clarify that “the study of L2 motivation reached an unprecedented boom in the 1990s, with over 100 journal articles published on the topic and a wide array of alternative theoretical constructs proposed.” Ellis (2008) explains that the attention of L2motivation research has switched to a more cognitive-situated view of motivation where the significance of situation-specific factors, such as the classroom learning situations was examined. The new approach, called education-oriented approach, promoted the cognitive aspects of L2 motivation, which resulted in the appearance of some new motivational constructs, especially those related to the learner self-concepts like self-confidence, self-efficacy, self-determination, and those of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations, the need for achievement, and expectancy of success, etc. Beside its concentration on the cognitive aspects of L2 motivation, this approach focused on situational factors relevant to classroom applications such as the characteristics of the language course and the language teacher and therefore expanded the L2 motivation paradigm (Cheng & Dörnyei, 2007).
During the 1990s period, researchers have made many attempts to reopen the research agenda in the field of L2 motivation developing new approaches and models for the construct, a discussion of which follows.
2.3.2.1. Dörnyei’s (1994) Framework of L2 Motivation
This model consists of three main levels that encompass many sub-motivational components:
1. The Language Level includes components relevant to some social aspects of L2, such as the L2 culture and L2 community (i.e. the integrative motivation subsystem). It also involves other components relevant to the intellectual and pragmatic values and benefits associated with L2 proficiency (i.e. the instrumental motivation subsystem).
2. The Learner Level comprises some components that display some of the traits the learner brings to the L2 learning process, such as the need for achievement and self-confidence. Self-confidence comprises various aspects of language anxiety, perceived L2 competence, motivational attributions, and self-efficacy.
3. The Learning-Situation Level involves some situation-specific motives rooted in various aspects of language learning in the classroom as follow:
A. The course-specific motivational components, such as the learner’s interest in theL2 course, the relevance of the L2 course to the learner’s needs and goals, expectancy of success, and satisfaction about the task outcome.
B. The teacher-specific motivational components are concerned with the motivational impact of the teacher’s personality, behaviour, and teaching style on students’ motivation. Some of the components constituting this sub-level are the affiliative motive, the teacher’s authority type, task presentation, and feedback.
C. The group-specific motivational components are relevant to the group dynamics of the learner group, such as its goal-orientedness, group-cohesiveness, norm and reward system, and the classroom goal structure.
A significant fact about Dörnyei’s model is that the three divisions in this model were based on empirical research findings such as that of Keller (1983), Dörnyei (1990) and Clément and colleagues (1994). These three levels also coincide with the three basic constituents of the L2 learning process (i.e. the target language, the language learner, and the learning situation). They also reflect three different dimensions of language: the social dimension, the personal dimension, and the educational subject-matter dimension. Another very important issue about this construct is that the motivational strategies that have been empirically tested in experimental studies were primarily introduced and designed based on its components (see Figure 2.4).
Figure 2.4. Dörnyei’s (1994) Model of L2 Motivation (Dörnyei, 1994a, p.280)
2.3.2.2. Williams and Burden’s (1997) Model of L2 Motivation
William and Burden’s (1997) was another attempt to produce a new construct of L2motivation during this period. Their research attempted to categorize some motivational components relevant to L2 learning in terms of internal and external factors. They believe that the extent to which the internal factors interact with each other and the relative importance that individuals attribute to them will affect the level and extent of learners’ motivation to complete a task or maintain an activity (Williams & Burden, 1997). Among the internal factors included in this model were intrinsic interest of activity, perceived value of activity, self-concept, and attitudes. Williams and Burden add that the internal factors are subject to the influence of some external factors, with which they interact in a dynamic way. They also propose that the external factors interact with each other. As we can see in Figure 6, the factors that were regarded as external in this model were significant other people (e.g. parents, teachers, etc.), the nature of interaction with significant others (e.g. feedback), the learning environment, and the broader context (e.g. cultural norms).
Figure 2.5. Williams and Burden’s (1997) Framework of L2 Motivation (cited in Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2011, p.54)

دسته بندی : پایان نامه ارشد

پاسخ دهید